Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion HiFi & HT Chat ‘Budget’ AV System

As previously indicated, the Focal Sib Evo Atmos have dual height and forward speakers. Two pairs of these (8 speakers) would be driven by an 8 channel Meridian 258.

In an ideal world, B&W would similarly redesign their existing M-1 Satellite Speakers.

I’ve calculated (with modest discounts) that by adding an extra pair of M6 (rears), 3200 (centre), G65, plus 722 - for a 5.1 system - is comparative in cost to a budget Atmos system, consisting of JBL SDP-55, 271, 258, 3200, plus Focal Sib Evo speakers.

What’s your preference - an all Meridian 5.1 DSP system, or a hybrid 7.1.4 Atmos AV system?

I must emphasise, as always, that sound is totally subjective. Having said that, I would go for the hybrid Atmos. For me, it provides sound (I am talking music here) that is just more lifelike. When I go to a live performance (and I often do - in London I am literally just round the corner from the Wigmore Hall) I am always struck, whatever the ensemble I am listening to, as to how much more free and airy it is than even the very best electronic system. Each instrument or voice (provided they are not amplified) makes its sound and those sound waves are immediately free to escape, so to speak, and go wherever they wish, independent of each other. Hence the airiness and ambient enhanced sound.

With reproduced sound, first it has to be captured by microphones which (however good) constrain the sound into a figurative 'pipe' (even multi-miking does this) before the waves have escaped very far. Then someone with a mixing desk fiddles with all sorts of parameters and eventually those sounds (in the vast majority of cases) are combined as just 2 (stereo) channels. Then we reproduce them through loudspeakers as faithfully as we can. Only then can the sound waves escape again (typically into a very small space - just a domestic room). Small wonder it is so unlifelike. I find that the extra speakers and speaker spacing of an Atmos layout, together with the jiggery pokery of things like Auro 3D or Neural X, add artificial but still effective degrees of sound freedom that the constraints of stereo alone do not do.

Many years ago (back in the 1950s) Gilbert Briggs, the founder of Wharfedale speakers, ran a series of concerts at the Royal Festival Hall where, behind curtains, he had musicians playing and also a stereo system cutting in and out with the same music. I was very young, but it was pretty hard to distinguish the two. However, the distance from the listener to the musicians or speakers was huge and so the reproduced sound could escape nearly as well as the live sounds. Atmos (or equivalents) are a piece of technical magic that, in my view, helps create an illusion of the size of venue that live performances are normally heard in. It is not for the HiFi purist, but I just like it because it takes me (I should say it takes my brain's interpretation of the sounds) nearer to the Holy Grail of being in a live venue. Bearing in mind the subjectivity of sound, it may not do what you want, of course.

I, too, would opt for the hybrid Atmos system, although I'm not entirely sure that the system you describe could be accurately described as 'budget', kicking off with a £5k processor as it does. It's all relative of course & even some Trinnov / 8kSE systems on here would no doubt be viewed as budget by various oligarchs.

I thoroughly enjoyed Longitude's thoughts about sound and how he feels live sound can be closely reproduced at home. Back when I ran Meridian processors I found that I preferred Ambisonics ahead of Trifield (which was the default multi-channel algorithm for many), precisely because of the extra space and air that it gave me.

I suspect that a lot of the purist 2-channel penchant may well be convention. The purist listens to better and better 2 channel hi-fi systems and becomes accustomed to the type of sound that they make. The thought of multi-channel is anathema to them, which is absolutely fine. As ever, there are no right or wrong answers with this, although it is probably possible to state objectively that a Trinnov is better than a Meridian 565.

It's 'budget' in that I would be paying £4,500 (discounted) for the processor compared to <£14,000 for the entry-level Trinnov Altitude 16 or Lyngdorf MP-60.

The JBL unit that interests me is the only one in its price bracket that has digital audio outputs like Trinnov/Lyngdorf. Indeed, I am not aware of anything else besides Trinnov/Lyngdorf that has digital audio outputs (for connecting to the digital audio inputs on a 271).

From what I can see, none of the processors on the market are risk-free. The one common problem amongst them all is audio 'popping' when changing source resolution.

I sometimes miss my Meridian G95 5.1 passive system for watching live concert performances on DVD - but I much prefer the vastly superior audio performance from Meridian DSPs.

I listen to music far more than I watch Movies or live concert performances, so I cannot justify spending such a significant amount on Trinnov/Lyngdorf.

Subsequently, a digital front end (M6 + 3200) - with 218/210 feeding a 271 - appears to be the sensible approach to spending on a 'music first' system in a modest-sized room.

Incidentally, during the 1970s, I owned a couple of CD-4, QS, SQ, UHJ quadraphonic systems (I still own a JVC CD-4 Demodulator and AKG Shibata Cartridge) - so I am more than familiar with Ambisonics (UHJ) recordings.

The Dante digital audio output of the SDP55 is not like the AES digital output of the Trinnov, Lyngdorf or Storm processors. Dante is a network protocol for transmitting up to 32 digital channels over a TCPIP network connection. Although they share a similar RJ45 connector, their intended use is completely different. You cannot simply connect the RJ45 output of the SDP55 to the RJ45 input of the 271. You could with the correct software, use Dante to AES3 converters to extract the audio with each converter having its own discrete IP address and ethernet cable. However, the associated devices required to make this happen such as a Dante audio over IP POE network switch and or POE injectors, a Dante to AES3 adapter for each channel pair, DB25 to 8 XLR cable, ethernet cables, power cords and or wall warts, etcetera make for a rack full of stuff. It will also require a good deal of network experience to pull it off. Imagine having to reset your network switch to get your rear speakers to work. The needed devices would also blow the budget up a couple of grand. The Dante output on the DSP55 is also limited to 48k.

My understanding was that Dante is compatible with AES67.

Are the 271’s digital inputs not AES67 too?

No. It is AES3. The 271 does not have any network streaming capabilities.

Page 6 of the 271 User Guide advises that a connection be made between the digital inputs of the 271 to the digital outputs of a ‘Digital AVR’ using RJ-45 connectors.

So, from your comments, the SDP-55 does not have such digital outputs (Dante)?

What are the ‘Digital AVR’ alternatives that Meridian have in mind?

Page 3 of the same manual for the 271 states: "Digital AES input on twin RJ45 connector (Datasat and Storm Audio pin configuration)"

Processors with digital outputs:

Trinnov Altitude 32 can output up to 16 Digital channels on DB25 in AES3 format. Even with the extra 4 channel upgrade or any other 8 channel upgrade it can only output 16 digital channels.

Lyngdorf MP60 up to 16 digital channels on DB25 in AES3 format.

Datasat 16 digital channels on two RJ45 connectors in AES3 format.

Storm Audio up to 32 digital channels on RJ45 in 8 channels per RJ45. To do 32 digital AES channels with Meridian DSP speakers you would need two 271's

Theta Digital Casablanca 4 and 5 12 channels AES 3 output over XLR. These channels are not subject to calibration levels so getting speaker levels correct requires great creativity and a sophisticated control system.

The Trinnov Altitude 16 is Analog output over DB25. The extra 4 channels made available by the last update are digital (two SPDIF RCA and two over Toslink) these channels are limited to 48k.

Sonifex (a British company) do this: AVN-DIO19 Dante to AES3 16 Channel I/O Converter but it will still eat into the budget a bit.

It's not so much the outputs but the protocols supported by the outputs. SpeakerLink is presented through an RJ45 output but could not be read with an RJ45 connection that is configured to accept a network protocol e.g. network switch. network card, router.